Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404.
It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak.
As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh.
[0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions
So I guess my question is what are your defaults? What is your unmodified behavior?
There is a package on the shelf, you only know what it says on the box, what you've seen on commercials, and maybe you've seen/heard of other people eating its contents. What's the decision tree for this scenario?
What I 'know' can be more or less completely summed as: I need to eat ~2500 calories per day, +/- 100 calories being 1/35th of a lb or so
I should eat ~1g/kg to 1g/lb lean body mass in protein to avoid losing muscle mass
I need to eat/drink enough salts/electrolytes to replace what is lost through perspiration
I need to eat enough of various micronutrients (e.g. Vitamin C) to avoid specific deficiencies.
[0]My understanding of what has been meaningfully proven/characterized with a 'to me' significant impact/effect.
I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'll pass. If I lose out on some benefits because of that, so be it.